I have a decent lefty forehand, but it really isn't viable(personally) to switch from the right hand on the buttcap to the left. I'm quite impressed with the guy in the 2nd vid..much much harder than it looks

To me, the common sense approach would be to have them play left handed for serve/FH and hit a 2 HBH. Lefty serve is huge advantage on ad side, and also much easier for lefty to hit righty BH when serving to either court. Ambidextrous player should have ability to develop good 2 HBH. And, lefty forehand CC goes into right handed opponent backhand.

I don't think I would go 2 hands on both sides. Yes, it has worked in the past - see Pancho Segura and Gene Mayer - but reach could be a problem.

This seems like the pragmatic approach as there are several advantages to be left handed in tennis. By the way, my approach seems to have worked pretty well for Rafa Nadal as he is a natural righty.

I have a decent lefty forehand, but it really isn't viable(personally) to switch from the right hand on the buttcap to the left. I'm quite impressed with the guy in the 2nd vid..much much harder than it looks

Click to expand...

Well, he's doing it, so clearly it can be done. And switching the racket quickly is something you can practice anytime, any place. But if you don't think you can do it, that's still no excuse now that you can buy two-handled rackets from www.naturalTennis.com

It ls clear from Nadal that you can develop a GREAT single-handed forehand using your weak hand. Despite the fact that MANY players try to develop a great two-handed backhand I can't think of anyone playing today who has succeeded.

So clearly the right decision is to go for two single-handed forehands.

I'd go for 2 backhands.
Why ? A player with 2 forehands is very limited. No slices, or at least no effective ones. Stops would be harder to disguise. Volleys are better on the backhand side for most players.

With 2 Backhands you got all these shots from both sides, of course the forehand has more potential on developing spin and speed but that doesn't make up for the lack of possibilities to structure your game. If your opponent has got a good day I want to see you trying to break his rythm with 2 forehands.

The more complete you are as a player, the more successful you will be. IMO the right choice would be , as TennisCJC said, to develop a forehand and a backhand. It is just the best of both worlds combined - 2backhands or 2forehands will always limit your play to a bigger extent than it will give you benefits.

From a learning an "advanced foundation" perspective, learn a two-handed forehand, (Seles/Bartoli style) and a conventional two-handed backhand. This style of forehand contributes greatly to the development of a strong conventional forehand, adding more emphasis on footwork, shortening the backswing, creating a more repeatable, reliable swing path, and proper body position and balance...all which can be translated into a conventional one-handed forehand if a player chooses to switch at some point.

Video one is not two backhands. He's playing a right-handed two-handed forehand and a right-handed two-handed backhand. They probably have it titled wrong in the video because he is (I'm guessing) a lefty.

I play with my primary forehand shot being a 2HFH, so I definitely know what they look like. The 2HFH player still needs a strong 1HFH for certain situations, imo, and the 2HBH player still needs a strong 1HBH for slicing and dropping.

The second video is avante guard, for sure! I strongly believe we will see someone break through with this style, but they won't be limited to "two forehands." They will essentially have two forehands and two backhands giving them a variety potential that we've never seen before at the higher levels.

The second video is avante guard, for sure! I strongly believe we will see someone break through with this style, but they won't be limited to "two forehands." They will essentially have two forehands and two backhands giving them a variety potential that we've never seen before at the higher levels.

Click to expand...

Mmh so you think that in the future someone will come along and play 2 forehands but is still able to switch to a backhand stance to play effective slices or backhands ?

If someone could do that it would be great for him. The reason why i doubt it : At least as important than your strokes is your ability to compete. You learn to compete at a high level with high expecations as a kid if you want to become a pro - but i think kids/young teenagers will not be efficient if they got such a huge shot arsenal. Every stroke can be a forehand, a backhand, a forehand slice, a backhand slice etc. It will confuse the young players more than it will benefit them.

Time will tell but I highly doubt that something like that can be efficient just like you won't see a pro being able to serve right- and lefthanded to make use of opening the court better or sth. like that.

Mmh so you think that in the future someone will come along and play 2 forehands but is still able to switch to a backhand stance to play effective slices or backhands ?

If someone could do that it would be great for him. The reason why i doubt it : At least as important than your strokes is your ability to compete. You learn to compete at a high level with high expecations as a kid if you want to become a pro - but i think kids/young teenagers will not be efficient if they got such a huge shot arsenal. Every stroke can be a forehand, a backhand, a forehand slice, a backhand slice etc. It will confuse the young players more than it will benefit them.

Time will tell but I highly doubt that something like that can be efficient just like you won't see a pro being able to serve right- and lefthanded to make use of opening the court better or sth. like that.

Click to expand...

Time will tell? I see what you did there :twisted:

I really don't think it's a huge stretch, in fact, it seems like a logical inevitability. The next generation almost always innovates and takes things to a level not previously thought possible. So many reasons why this happens, one obvious one being they have all the information from their predecessors available to them when they are first starting: that's a tremendous advantage.

Someone will figure it out. People are already working on it, as evidenced by the second video. The logical extension of two forehands is also having two backhands.

For instance: someone draws you out wide to the deuce court > you respond with with a RHFH > opponent plays great shot to open court > you need to defend > quickly switch to a RHBH grip > defend > ready position.

Never underestimate the lengths children will go to master something. All it takes is information from predecessors to inspire them, and some will take it to the next level. As the first crop of double forehanders start making waves, be assured the next gen will try it and innovate it even further.

I really don't think it's a huge stretch, in fact, it seems like a logical inevitability. The next generation almost always innovates and takes things to a level not previously thought possible. So many reasons why this happens, one obvious one being they have all the information from their predecessors available to them when they are first starting: that's a tremendous advantage.

Someone will figure it out. People are already working on it, as evidenced by the second video. The logical extension of two forehands is also having two backhands.

For instance: someone draws you out wide to the deuce court > you respond with with a RHFH > opponent plays great shot to open court > you need to defend > quickly switch to a RHBH grip > defend > ready position.

Never underestimate the lengths children will go to master something. All it takes is information from predecessors to inspire them, and some will take it to the next level. As the first crop of double forehanders start making waves, be assured the next gen will try it and innovate it even further.

Click to expand...

It's possible i guess. I dont even question that someone can master it, I just think that it will definitely take more time to master it and use it effectively especially in the important timespan as young teenagers where it mostly decides if you become a pro or not.

But i guess its a totally valid argument that there are/were pro players with 2 "backhands" - why not 2 forehands? With the right talent pretty much everything is possible

Except for high volleys (the only ones you can really tee-off on). And drive-volleys.
Actually, I volley best two-handed, going to a forehand volley on either side if the ball is difficult to reach. But the volley is a completely different stroke. You can volley two-handed while hitting one-handed forehand ground strokes just as you can volley continental despite hitting semi-western ground strokes.

of course the forehand has more potential on developing spin and speed but that doesn't make up for the lack of possibilities to structure your game. If your opponent has got a good day I want to see you trying to break his rythm with 2 forehands.

Click to expand...

And yet, I see match after match on TV where every player is trying to turn everything he can into a forehand, and doing his best to force his opponent to hit backhands. Some of them must be having good days, yet I don't see their opponents running around their forehands so they can break up their opponents' rhythm with backhand slices.

I'd go for 2 backhands.
Why ? A player with 2 forehands is very limited. No slices, or at least no effective ones. Stops would be harder to disguise. Volleys are better on the backhand side for most players.

Click to expand...

While he hit a two-handed fh, Santoro seems to be the big exception to your observation. He definitely preferred to hit wicked slice off his forehand side rather than his backhand, which he would often topspin.

Except for high volleys (the only ones you can really tee-off on). And drive-volleys.
Actually, I volley best two-handed, going to a forehand volley on either side if the ball is difficult to reach. But the volley is a completely different stroke. You can volley two-handed while hitting one-handed forehand ground strokes just as you can volley continental despite hitting semi-western ground strokes.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's true. It would propably not be that important anyways due to the slow courts and 95% baseline play (if we're speaking about pro's).

And yet, I see match after match on TV where every player is trying to turn everything he can into a forehand, and doing his best to force his opponent to hit backhands. Some of them must be having good days, yet I don't see their opponents running around their forehands so they can break up their opponents' rhythm with backhand slices.

Click to expand...

Well if you look at Nadals adjustements he did to beat Djokovic, the backhand slice plays an important role. Of course the forehand will still be the better stroke but we're talking a total lack of slices - if you can name a player that is successfully using forehand slices in our times other than on approach shots or improvising I'll look at the footage

Of course the thing open to discussion ( or more to opinions since there is no professional with 2 forehands that can bring evidence ) is if the 2 forehands are equally strong, maybe the player will still run around balls to hit with the stronger forehand. I would not necessarily say that the backhand has to be the weaker stroke - quick question on that topic : Does anybody know if ambidexterity is favored by unique brain structures or is just a process of learning it as a child ( if wanted or not ) ?

If we're talking the perfect baseline player - like a guy with 2 Del Potro forehands - who can hit amazing winners from both sides frequently then I totally agree. 2 forehands have way more potential - I just don't think it's realistic

While he hit a two-handed fh, Santoro seems to be the big exception to your observation. He definitely preferred to hit wicked slice off his forehand side rather than his backhand, which he would often topspin.

It ls clear from Nadal that you can develop a GREAT single-handed forehand using your weak hand.

Click to expand...

I don't buy this crap that Rafa is a natural righty. I've seen photos of him playing pool/snooker left handed. He fist pumps with his left hand. You don't do that sort of stuff with your left hand if your right-handed. I'm a lefty and there is no way I could play pool/snooker right-handed. If I was to fist pump it would also be my left hand.

Well if you look at Nadals adjustements he did to beat Djokovic, the backhand slice plays an important role.

Click to expand...

Mainly because his two-hander isn't as good as his forehand, so he supplements it with variety.

Of course the thing open to discussion ( or more to opinions since there is no professional with 2 forehands that can bring evidence ) is if the 2 forehands are equally strong, maybe the player will still run around balls to hit with the stronger forehand.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I think he has a better chance of strengthening his weak side to be match his strong side, at least to the extent that he suffers no bio-mechanical limitations on his weaker forehand. A two-hander will always have limited reach and limited topspin compared to a forehand, all the more so with a one-handed backhand..

Does anybody know if ambidexterity is favored by unique brain structures or is just a process of learning it as a child ( if wanted or not ) ?

Click to expand...

I think the brain structures are different in someone who is strongly 'handed as compared with someone ambidextrous. I also think that brain structures change with use, all the more so in children.

If we're talking the perfect baseline player - like a guy with 2 Del Potro forehands - who can hit amazing winners from both sides frequently then I totally agree. 2 forehands have way more potential - I just don't think it's realistic

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, actually. Do people who learn to play weak-handed due to injury ever reach their prior ability? Rarely, I suspect. Would his weak-handed forehand ever surpass the level of his earlier double-handed backhand? I think that's possible.

However, when someone starts out fairly ambidextrous, I think it's a good risk to try that style of play and see what happens. I mean, the average person is not going to become a champion, anyway, no matter what he does.

In the early 1950s Beverly Baker Fleitz played with two single-handed forehands and nearly won Wimbledon. In other tournaments she often beat the woman who did take the Wimbledon crown that year, so she was capable of winning it.

In my case, both my hands have less coordination than other people's strong hand, and both have better coordination than other people's weak hand. I played tennis right-handed (poorly) for ten years and was frustrated by my inability to turn my one-handed backhand into a killer weapon. (Well, they _claimed_ the backhand his the most natural shot, that if you turn your shoulders you've discover surprising power, and that most good players have better backhands than forehands. Foolish me, I wanted to believe them. But Jack Kramer insisted otherwise, and I never saw a player whose one-handed backhand was as dangerous as Lendl's forehand.)

Then I read a tennis magazine article explaining that the top pros develop an individual style suited to their own physical and mental characteristics rather than, say, imitating a favorite player from their childhood. I reasoned that if I did not have a strong hand to use, I could at least hit the stronger stroke off both sides.

For the first twenty-five years of ambidextrous play I was stronger of the right side, due to those early years as a right-hander. I was crappy tennis player, but among people at my level (with comparable strong-hand forehands) my lefty forehand was much stronger than their backhands. (Aside from the absence of general athletic talent, I was kept down by lack of a decent serve and net game.)

Then I made a decision to spend most of my practice time working on my serve, net game, and left forehand. Now my left hand is stronger -- usually -- so I've started bringing back some right-handed practice. I never try to run around the ball; but shots straight at me I will take on which ever side is stronger on that particular day. I'm somewhat less crappy a player these days, especially that I'm finally starting to develop spin serves (switching to left-handed serving might NOT have been such a great idea).

At my 3.5 level I hit winners with either forehand. I don't care how high they bounce the ball up at me. People say I look like a 4.0 player -- and probably would be one if I didn't have a tendency to occasionally space out on the court and forget to watch the ball. (In a period of sustained focus I beat people at my level 6-0; then when I lose concentration they beat me 6-0.)

I think the brain structures are different in someone who is strongly 'handed as compared with someone ambidextrous. I also think that brain structures change with use, all the more so in children.

Click to expand...

I searched for a bit of scientifically proven facts that would be useful in such a discussion but there is not a whole lot going on with this topic actually
Only thing I could find was that humans, apes, cats and rats are all prefering one hand if they get to a complex task. The only theory why that is is more than a 100 years old and total nonsense, but no actual solution why people are using one hand preferably or why some are ambidextrous.

However, when someone starts out fairly ambidextrous, I think it's a good risk to try that style of play and see what happens. I mean, the average person is not going to become a champion, anyway, no matter what he does.

Click to expand...

If someone wanted to play with 2 forehands or 2 backhands I would never hinder him, I would heavily support it because I think it's very interesting to look at people using very different games and how "normal" players react to it. I just thought about reasons to decide between the two.

I just found something very funny regarding this topic - its no super official source but has somebody else heard of that ? "In his early years, Nadal (who wrote with his right hand) played left-handed tennis with both a two-handed forehand and backhand. When he was 12, however, his uncle encouraged him to adopt a more conventional left-handed style. Nadal stuck with his two-handed backhand but switched to what became his signature one-handed forehand[...]

I agree, but would make an important distinction: it's a heavily choked up LH FH.

Try playing your RH FH holding the racquet so the top of your right hand is equal to the top of the grip, just below the throat of the racquet. Doable, of course, but definitely unorthodox, and you'd lose stability.

The RH 2HBH is definitely drawing the positive characteristics of a LF FH in the sense that the Righty's power come from his left arm and body's kinetic energy. Cool topic, especially for me, a guy who plays a 2HFH and a 2HBH.

Two forehands
You don't play two forehands for returns. Switching hands is troublesome. And it's not worth the extra headache.

Two backhands
It's just called a two handed forehand. This is better than two forehands but suffers from the lack of reach that comes with being two handed. But some people feel damn comfortable with it so leave them be.

Playing lefty
There is no downside. Look at Nadal's career. Now look at your student. Back to Nadal. Sadly, your student is not Nadal. However, if you teach him to play lefty instead of some other gimmicky stuff, he could someday win a professional tournament.

Nah, I think if the forehand from both sides approach could have ever worked, it would have by now.

At the upper echelons of the game, the confusion, the weakness of being attacked down the middle and weakness of returning serves must limit the potential of two 1hfh's, otherwise we would have at least seen it semi-successful on the pro tour by now.